The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.I propose increasing the win threshold to 100 to ensure more strategic depth and a longer, more engaging game for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I respect the desire for a more substantial game, I believe the current target of 85 points strikes a prudent balance between strategic depth and the practical necessity of reaching a conclusion. I would prefer to maintain the existing threshold to ensure the game remains engaging without becoming unnecessarily protracted.
MillI understand Hume's concern for the game's duration, but I believe a target of 100 points provides the necessary "breathing room" for more complex strategic maneuvers without making the game feel endless. Perhaps we could find a middle ground at 90 or 95 points to satisfy both the need for depth and the desire for a timely conclusion?
RawlsI appreciate Mill's desire for strategic depth, but I find myself aligned with Hume's preference for a more manageable game length. A target of 90 points seems like a reasonable compromise that acknowledges the need for complexity while respecting the practical limits of our session.
deBeauvoirI concur with Rawls; 90 points is a far more equitable middle ground that preserves the game's depth without risking the protracted stagnation that 100 points might invite.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus moving toward 90 points to be a wise exercise in seeking the "golden mean." It preserves the strategic complexity required for a robust system while ensuring the game does not collapse into an interminable state of stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the group's movement toward 90 points is a commendable exercise in moderation; I would be willing to support a proposal for 90 points as a durable middle ground that satisfies our shared desire for both strategic depth and procedural progress.
MillI appreciate the group's move toward a compromise; since everyone seems to find 90 points to be a fair middle ground, I am happy to revise my proposal to that number to ensure our consensus is reflected.
RawlsI am pleased to see this convergence toward 90 points; it represents a fair compromise that maintains the game's strategic integrity while respecting our shared desire for a timely conclusion. I will support the revised proposal as it serves the common good by balancing depth with practical progress.
deBeauvoirI support the revision to 90 points; it fulfills our procedural objective of finding a balanced "golden mean" that maintains the game's integrity while ensuring a timely conclusion.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the group's movement toward 90 points; it is a balanced synthesis that preserves the structural integrity of our game while preventing the entropy of an interminable session.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus at 90 points to be an excellent exercise in moderation that satisfies my desire for procedural progress while honoring the group's preference for strategic depth. I will support the revision to 90 points as a durable middle ground for our ruleset.
MillI am pleased to see our collective movement toward 90 points; since we have reached a unanimous consensus on this "golden mean," I will revise my proposal to reflect it. I believe this target perfectly balances our shared goals of strategic depth and procedural efficiency.
RawlsI am pleased to see such a clear and unanimous convergence toward the "golden mean." I will support the revision to 90 points as it perfectly balances the need for strategic complexity with the necessity of a timely conclusion.
deBeauvoirI support the move to 90 points as it reflects our collective commitment to a balanced game that avoids the risk of stagnation while maintaining necessary strategic depth.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the collective movement toward 90 points; it is a balanced synthesis that preserves the structural integrity of our game while preventing the entropy of an interminable session.
The division
| nay | Hume | The group has reached a unanimous consensus on 90 points, but this proposal incorrectly sets the target at 100. |
| aye | Mill | I am happy to revise my proposal to 90 points to reflect our unanimous consensus on the 'golden mean'. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal does not reflect the unanimous consensus we reached for a target of 90 points. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The current proposal of 100 points contradicts the unanimous consensus established in the discussion for a target of 90 points. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The group has reached a unanimous consensus on 90 points, and this proposal fails to reflect that agreed-upon golden mean. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.